DVLA getting sneaky, just got back from court, not happy!

[Tony P]

Well done Marlon. You are quite right and I just wish more would be aware of this outrage and had the information to fight it.

 

As postggj said "seems a pattern is developing"

 

This raises a few questions to me about the financial side.

If someone pays the DVLA Penalty request, or settles prior to entering the Courtroom, the money presumably all goes to the DVLA .

If it goes in front of Magistrates and they impose a fine, that goes to the central exchequer, not DVLA.

DVLA probably apply for costs but can they claim their original Penalty Charge?

 

 

What are the usual fines and costs imposed by the Courts when they are duped by DVLA?

 

The other query -

Courts usually deal with cases of Defendants who turn up before those who do not.

Surely if the Magistrates have found you No Guilty (or heard DVLA admit you were Not Guilty) how can they then arrive at the opposite decision moments later in the other 39 identical cases without even wondering if they, and the Court process, are being manipulated and used wrongly.

[Raykay]

If it is the Late Licensing Penalty, it is treated as a civil matter and is paid into the consolidated fund (whatever that is - s.7B(4) VERA 1994)

 

If it is an out of court settlement offer for not having a licence/not notifying change of keeper - a criminal matter - I understand that if you pay the settlement offer, they keep it. As you say, a court fine goes to the exchequer.

 

I agree that it seems that if the DVLA prosecutor thinks that a not guilty verdict is possible, they will offer no evidence on that case so as not to alert the court and upset their money making racket.

[marlon-dingle]

I was not found "Not Guilty" as they had the nerve to say that they had withdrawn the case but the letter telling me this had been mislaid in the postal system..........the same charge as I was facing ironically.I honestly believe that anyone who turns up looking well prepared and smart looking will get their case withdrawn as they can't afford a Not Guilty plea as in theory it will make it harder to find the next 39 cases Guilty and upset the money making racket.Sometimes you have to throw the little ones away when fishing to land the big one.I asked for costs and was told that all I could claim was my mileage and parking not my lost days pay.Is this correct?I have half a mind to take the DVLA to the small claims court for my expenses seeing as how I never received their imaginary letter. (If the letter had been sent, why was I still listed on the court papers).Can someone please tell me if they have sucessfully reclaimed their true costs inc lost wages?The magistrate said that I should be thankful that I was not facing charges rather than complaining aboutmy lost days pay. I suppose when you are wealthy you don't have to worry about losing a days pay.Most important thing at the end of the day is no criminal record which is what would have happened had I stuck my head in the sand and not bothered with it. Thanks to all the Paul Kennedy's that when before meand showed me the path to take.Does anyone know if there is a petition against the DVLA and this scandal whereby you can get it discussed in Parliament when you get 100,000 signatures?

Edited October 25, 2011 by marlon-dingle

[marlon-dingle]

Sorry...........doesn't seem to want to punctuate even though I wrote it correctly.

[vaping andy]

I'm in a similar boat with the DVLA.

 

Here's a quick run down of my situation, hopefully, it will look familiar to some of you if you've been through this yourselves.

 

With any luck, some kind soul can offer me advice as i'm a complete legal newbie. (i've read up and searched online for advice, and found this site)

 

Bought a used car earlier this year on the 16th of May.

 

The tax disc had expired at the end of April, so was out of date. I got the car home, and being a conscientious sort, wanted to tax it as soon as i could - so tried to tax it online, using the DVLA online service..it rejected my application as the MID database hadn't updated the owner details and i wasn't the registered keeper according to their records, and the car did not have valid insurance certificate either. I tried about five separate times to tax it...i even tried to SORN it, and was also rejected by the system for the same reasons.

 

I resolved myself with having to wait for the registration to be changed by the DVLA and my insurance documents to reach me, so i could go and tax it at the post office.

 

One and a half days later (on the 17th May, although DVLA claims it was the 18th!) a DVLA van screeched to a halt outside my home, where the car is parked (on the road) and out jumps a bloke with a camera, taking snaps of the car and the out of date tax disc.

 

I approached him, and told him that i'd only just bought the car a couple of days ago, and that i have been trying to tax it, but without the relevant documents i could not do so...he said, "Oh that's all right mate, we're just taking a picture for our records", and in reply to my statement about trying to get tax, he said "yeah, sure...that's fine mate". With that he jumps back in his van and drives off.

 

Remembering being in similar circumstances decades ago, i always remembered there was a couple of weeks leeway given to owners of cars to get tax, if they'd just bought their cars...this is no longer the case apparently, as a short while later, i got a demand for payment of a 'penalty' from DVLA for not displaying a valid tax disc, and pay up or else! (paraphrasing).

 

I was hopping with anger i can tell ya! Bloody cheek! Their own bloody system wouldn't allow me to obtain the tax, despite repeated attempts to try and get the bloody tax, yet they were demanding money from me in the form of a fine for not having tax!!

 

I replied to the 'demand' for money and explained that i had only had the car for 2 days at the most, and that i had immediately been trying (unsuccessfully) to tax the car, and was fully prepared and willing to tax it, if their system had allowed me to do so, and that a quick check of ISP logs from the date i bought it, up until when the goon swooped in the van snapping the photos, i had tried on many occasions to tax the car.

 

They replied saying basically 'Tough luck'! (again, paraphrasing), and pay up or it's going to court. I have since received a court summons in regard to this tax fiasco and they want me in court in Jan 2012.

 

Any one else have experience of this sort of thing, and have any advice for me?

 

I realise all advice is on a take it or leave it basis, and forms no 'professional advice' or similar.

 

Cheers all.

 

(i want to fight this extortion)

[Raykay]

The bottom line is that the vehicle should not have been on a public road if it was unlicensed. You should have been given the green 'New Keeper' part of the V5C and used that to licence it at a Post Office at the time that you bought it if you intended keeping it on a public road. There is no leeway for new owners to licence vehicles.

The 'grace' days are for displaying the licence that has been applied for, not a dispensation for applying for the licence itself.

[vaping andy]

Thanks for your reply RayKay,

 

The portion of the logbook i got with the car was useless in obtaining tax. The DVLA online system would not accept the number on the slip, as their database had not updated (i had literally JUST bought the car 2 days before), and i had not yet received my insurance documents either, so the online service, nor the post office would have issued me a tax disk, what am i to do? I fully intended to buy the tax, it's just that the DVLA system prevented me from buying it.

 

How can that be a crime on my part?

[Raykay]

As you were not yet recorded as the registered keeper you cannot apply on-line which is what the new keeper supplement is for, to enable a new keeper to obtain one at the Post Office .

 

They may accept that you intended to obtain a licence, but the offence is complete because you hadn't .

[vaping andy]

Cheers for that mate, but as i say, the new keeper supplement portion is and was useless, as it cannot be used online, or at a post office without the other documentation being in place (insurance documents had not arrived in the post).

 

The car is required to be taxed...i wanted to tax the car, due to the vagaries of their own system, they effectively blocked me and wouldn't allow me to tax it, then call me a criminal because i had the car on the road outside my house for 2 days after buying it!

 

Personally, i think this is outrageous, and is NOT the Great Britain i grew up in. Common sense has deliberately been thrown out of the window, in favour of downright unfair bureaucratic traps and pitfalls designed to extort money from honest motorists using the slightest excuse or misdemeanour.

 

I purchased the extortionate bloody tax disc at the earliest opportunity, and this STILL isn't good enough!

 

I wouldn't mind if i had a history of being some kind of arse, who never has bought car tax or insurance for years, i have always had my cars and bikes taxed, mot'd and insured, always...so perfectly law abiding history for nearly three decades, have a car on the road for 2 days because DVLA arses won't allow me to tax it, and now i'm a ******, worthy of being in court!

 

Bugger them then, i'm going to be taking a leaf out of 'A Freeman's' book and they can talk to the birth certificate, seeing as that's who they claim committed this outrageous 'offence', the fictitious creation of the 'person' named similarly to myself. They'll have a job getting fines out of a piece of paper.

 

Bastards.

 

Thanks anyway RayKay.

[Raykay]

I'm sorry but you cannot blame the system, you should have got your documents together and licensed the vehicle at the Post Office using the new keeper supplement when you bought it, or kept it off the road until you had.

[vaping andy]

I'm sorry but you cannot blame the system, you should have got your documents together and licensed the vehicle at the Post Office using the new keeper supplement when you bought it, or kept it off the road until you had.

 

Do you work for the DVLA by any chance? Not trying to offend you, but the exchange i'm having with you seems eerily reminiscent of conversing with the DVLA! I can and DO blame the system though, that's my point.

 

How does one 'get documents together' that do not (did not) exist? That's a neat trick, obtaining documents for a vehicle before the vehicle is either inspected or indeed purchased. I'd be interested how someone could reasonably be expected to achieve this feat, short of possessing the gift of clairvoyance!

 

As i have said at least three times so far, i did NOT have the documents required by the DVLA in order to purchase tax, from either the DVLA directly or from the post office. The document in question preventing this, was the insurance documentation, as it took a while to arrive and i don't have a fax machine or didn't have a printer.

 

It's a bit glib to say i should have kept the vehicle off the road, i had fully intended to buy tax for the period the car was on the road, indeed i TRIED to buy tax on many occasions, so reasoned i would be fine as any REASONABLE human being, not out to raise revenue by any means, would immediately realise i had only just bought the car a couple of days previously, would know from my previous driving record that i have always been conscientious and diligent with ensuring that any vehicle i have ever owned was mot'd, taxed and insured, and upon checking the website logs for the period in question, would have seen for themselves that i had tried repeatedly to tax the vehicle using the online system and hence known that i fully intended to buy tax.

 

(I've not even had a speeding ticket since the 80's!)

 

I'm leaning towards the DVLA DELIBERATELY making it impossible for people who buy a used car privately, on which the tax has expired in order for the driver to alert the DVLA that they have access to an untaxed car (by the driver trying to tax it online) then the DVLA dart around to the address of the driver who is attempting to buy tax hoping to find any excuse within the statutes to impose fines.

 

It's a cynical and insidious business strategy, nothing more.

 

IF the DVLA genuinely wanted to encourage drivers to obtain tax for their vehicles, then it would follow that vehicle tax would be something that any vehicle owner, insured or otherwise can purchase to remain legal. Driving without MOT or insurance is a completely separate issue and separate offence that could and should be pursued as a separate and distinct matter (if applicable).

 

Basically, the DVLA has forced me and probably hundreds of thousands of other drivers into this position, because they favour illegally imposing fines on motorists over actually making buying tax a much simpler affair for people not in possession of the required documentation.

 

This basically amounts to legalised extortion, using the excuse of no valid tax when an individuals' history and circumstances clearly show i had always been a legal driver, had been trying repeatedly to buy the tax they claim to want me to have, but prevented me from obtaining.

 

I would argue that it is not beyond the wit of human beings, or specifically a government department who genuinely exist as part of their remit to provide a means to buy tax, and not exist as a means to extort fines from motorists, to have a system of 'interim tax' or 'short period tax', solely based on the vehicle (as it should be anyway) and not on the availability of insurance or mot documentation (which would only allow the vehicle to be considered legal for taxation purposes only) which could be purchased online, in a post office or even a supermarket.

 

It could cover the vehicle's taxation class for a maximum period of say two weeks, after which a driver would have to purchase another short period tax disc (or normal duration tax bought while in possession of required documentation), to a maximum of four consecutive fortnightly interim discs, after which a six monthly or yearly disc would need to be purchased.

 

This system would probably be charged with an attached premium cost due to the extra administration, and so while allowing drivers in my situation and similar predicaments, to remain legal and offer a buffer of a few weeks or so for us to obtain the required paperwork from insurers, for DVLA to amend registered keeper details and the MID database, in order for a driver to obtain tax from the online system, which is impossible as it currently stands for drivers which find themselves in the situation of buying a used car with an expired tax disc.

 

Too difficult? For British men and women, who once ruled over a third of our planet...i think not. On the contrary, i suspect it would encourage a far greater uptake of vehicle tax, reduce the numbers of uninsured drivers and encourage a greater sense of civic conformity and consequently i assume therein lies the reason we do not have such a system!

 

Too many drivers taxing their vehicles, means too few fines for drivers not taxing their vehicles!

 

Yes, i am cynical, and becoming more so as the weeks roll by. If the evidence of legalised extortion is in my face, i cannot fail to see it! The revenue raising by extorting monies from drivers who are acting in good faith and are honestly trying to remain within the law, in spite of the many obstacles placed in our way, is obvious for all to see, once one removes the rose tinted spectacles and actually delves into the past record of the DVLA, notwithstanding their recent and ongoing prosecution for fraud, then we begin to see exactly what they are really all about of late...extorting money from the public.

 

Frankly, i'm an 'ordinary' family man, but i'll tell you this i am really, really starting to see the light, and am now having my eyes well and truly opened to what a monumental con mechanism the DVLA has turned into, using the authority of the government to basically cheat and steal by playing the system to it's maximum, and even overstepping legality (trampling while laughing their heads off more like!) in their seemingly blinkered pursuit of ever more revenue.

 

I can appreciate the 'occupy' mindset increasingly over the 'legal' mindset, and i think i'll be joining them sooner rather than later. The UK government needs to urgently clean house methinks, or else they will be stringing up their own noose (metaphorically, of course) if they continue to ride roughshod over honest people this way.

 

I'll not ask you to comment further RayKay, as to be perfectly honest mate, you sound as though you're 'batting for the other side' as it were, and frankly, i can do without comments like 'you should have taxed it', especially after i have written at length to explain why i was prevented from doing so, so thank you for your input thus far.

 

I would ask anyone else who has been in a similar situation to me to comment though.

Think I'll go and have a drink now, before i burst a blood vessel with rage.

 

Cheers.

Edited November 7, 2011 by vaping andy
typo

[Tony P]

Well, not a lot to add!

 

You are expressing, better than I could, why I feel happier with where I have chosen to liive sooner than where I lived for 60+ years.

Here, there is infinitely more FREEDOM than ever I felt in recent years in UK, but of a different kind. It is not oppressive but not without it's problems - but manageable (not being a super rich or super powerful threat to the other super rich or super powerful crooks who run the largest country in the World).

 

I disagree with your comments about Raykay. I know nothing of him except what I read on these forums. He understands the legal process and knows the legal situation. Be grateful he imparts his knowledge (and occasional advice) for free, sooner than seek being paid at an hourly rate that only a (errr...) Russian Oligarch can afford.

[DILLIGAF1960]

I was summoned by the dvla to attend our magistrates court last month Oct 2011 !they asked the dvla official to present his "EVIDENCE" ! the dvla said they hadn't recieved the V5 so i couldn't have possibly sent it !! WTF ! I told the court that the law states that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt ! & that the dvla only had "in their opinion" i had not sent it in & that wasn't & couldn't be classed as PROOF in a court of law ! I also stated that "my contract with the secretary of state began & ended " when i correctly addressed my envelope, placed my V5 document in that envelope & sent it with a first class stamp ! I further stated that having discharged my "LEGAL OBLIGATION" to the secretary of state it in no way meant that A: my letter reached them via Royal Mail & B: that it wasn't lost in their internal mail system & once again asked for actual proof & not just the dvla's opinion i hadn't sent it ! it was found in my favour & the dvla official looked great with the amount of egg on his face !!! :o)) Forgot to mention that the court i was in had no less than 59 cases as mine & only 4 people turned up to dispute the charge ! a very easy revenue [problem] by the dvla as i think most people would rather pay a fine than loose a days pay by turning up to court whilst not being sure if they had a chance of winning against the government ?

Edited November 10, 2011 by DILLIGAF1960

[Tony P]

the court i was in had no less than 59 cases as mine & only 4 people turned up to dispute the charge ! a very easy revenue [problem] by the dvla

 

This is the strange thing I cannot understand. How can it be a revenue [problem] for DVLA as , if it goes to a Court the Fine goes through the Court to central government funds - not the DVLA.

DVLA only gain if you accept and pay an out of Court settlement/penalty to DVLA.

 

It must be keeping the fear factor going to try to do a deal on the steps, even if they do not get the cash once it enters the Courtroom.

 

 

Well done, by the way. Admirable performance.

[vaping andy]

I do appreciate RayKays' comments, and his/her offering to impart knowledge.

I was frustrated, that's all.

 

Don't speak Russian, have no money (in fact, we're in minus figures monetarily!) , and am out of work, so moving my family there isn't really an option, even if i could afford a ticket and passport.

 

Glad to hear the adventurous British spirit is alive and well in the East though mate!

Edited November 11, 2011 by vaping andy

[vaping andy]

This is just yet another example of exactly the modus operandi of the con the DVLA is attempting (and apparently getting away with wholesale!) to perpetrate on the British people. Basically, because the DVLA is a government department, the British Government is in fact attempting to defraud the British people, using the 'not followed up with a call ruse, such as in your case explained in your post.

 

This is patently obvious, it is an out and out fraud, as there is PLENTY of legal precedence already gone before the courts and on record, of plenty of losses for the DVLA on this particular issue.

 

Therefore, the DVLA (the Government) is attempting to defraud you and all of the others it takes to court for this so called 'offence', even though they and the courts are WELL AWARE, according to the court losses PROVING that the people do NOT have a legal obligation to chase up the DVLA as to whether or not they have received notification of sale or disposal of a vehicle!

 

This is outrageous that it is STILL going on. The Courts, by continuing to attempt prosecution of these cases (and make money from them) are complicit in the fraud too, as they should be refusing to try them, as they are aware the claims and cases are invalid in law.

 

Yet they continue to try them! And the DVLA continues to take people to court for the same 'offence'.

 

Doesn't this tell any reasonable human being exactly what the motives of at least the DVLA actually are?

 

How about a class action suit againt the DVLA (Government) for corporate fraud, tried under common law? We have proof, by their continuing to try cases based on this faulty (manufactured) premise.

[adey5]

Looks like my wife and I have just been entered in to the same non-notification of sale dvla lottery as so many other people before us. Having read this thread and others I am disgusted that this has happened for so long and to so many people and yet still continues. Usual story, we sent the slip, received a letter saying someone was regiostering the car but they didn't have our slip, rang them explained we had sent it, they said write again, rang them again and they said docs (first docs) received and processed, road tax rebate received. Now a letter this morning with fine/court threat.

 

Any advice welcomed re trying to get this dismissed now rather than having it go all the way to court. (Which if it does we will definitely attend!)

 

Thanks in advance

[vaping andy]

Hi Adey,

 

I would write or call the DVLA and inform them that you will not be paying their demand for money from you, as you have done nothing wrong and have carried out all legal responsibilities required under law.

 

I would also point out that continuing to attempt to prosecute drivers, who have NO legal obligation to chase up the DVLA after you notify them of a vehicle sale, transfer or disposal can be construed as fraudulently attempting to obtain money, since they are themselves aware of multiple court rulings where a magistrate or judge has ruled that a defendant (driver / owner) has not 'offended', because there IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to chase the DVLA for confirmation they had received your sent documents or not.

 

The DVLA are simply relying on the majority of these cases to never reach court, in order to be thrown out. This way, most people will just pay up frightened of the court system, or of getting a conviction against them, and they are quids in.

 

I would go to court myself if they won't give in, and i would ask the court why they are still trying cases that have no basis in law, to still keep coming before the courts repeatedly, even after it has been proven that there is NO case to answer, as there is no legal obligation on the part of the vehicle owner / keeper to chase up.

 

I reckon the DVLA will throw in the towel if you put them right with a few facts.

 

Good luck.

[Tony P]

adey5

Look at this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?319264-DVLA-Failure-to-notify-Advice-required.

The point is you will probably have to go all the way with them.

And preferably not give in or compromise with them.

They would not extend the same opportunity to you if you asked!

 

There are many here supporting you. Keep us informed and don't be afraid to ask for advice.

[paul kennedy]

Dear vaping andy,

 

Ray Kay is a CAG hero whose advice helped me take DVLA to the Crown court and win. Batting for the other side ! you are having a laugh and I suggest you apologise.

 

What you do not want is somebody telling you you have a legal case when you dont because although it might make you feel better it could cost you dear in the courts.

 

Hope you see sense.

 

Regards

 

Paul Kennedy

[danielr]

Hi Vaping Andy,

 

Unfortunately my advice will be a bit late for you...

but, here's what you should have done... (and if you ever find yourself in this situation again what you should do.)

 

when you bought the car, you should have be given the green V5c slip, and the green MOT pass paperwork

and got insurance for the car, (just phoning them and changing your policy details)

 

If you don't get the MOT pass paperwork you should assume that there is no MOT (to protect yourself) and arrange to have the car MOT'd at a garage before moving it.

or, refuse the sale of the car until the pass certificate is present.

 

At this point you should have the V5c (slip), insurance, and either a valid MOT, or an appointment booked at a garage for an MOT.

 

If you'll need to be going to the garage for the MOT feel free to drive directly to the garage without either an MOT or tax, provided your trip to the garage is direct, and your appointment is booked you'll be fine even if you are stopped by the police. (because your papers would be in order)

 

Now you're at a point where you have the V5c slip, and you have the MOT pass cert, (which is the point where you started). You've got insurance, but as you have no paperwork you can't get prove that insurance at the post office.

 

So what you need to do is either be in the possession of, or have access to a fax machine (there are still shops where you can go in, and pay to receive a fax so you'd just have to call your insurance provider when you're in the shop), and have your insurance provider fax you a cover note in lieu of the actual policy schedule/certificate of insurance.

Or go to an insurance broker who can confirm with your policy provider that you have insurance and will provide you with a printed cover note.

 

Then, go to the post office and tax as usual. (with the V5c slip, MOT and insurance.)

 

Basically, as Ray Kay said, the offence was "committed", and whilst it would have be difficult for you to get the car taxed as you didn't have the full certificate, it's not impossible to do this. and you 'could' have worked around this issue in the way that I've just described. So it'd be difficult (maybe impossible) to get out of it.

 

(The advice that I've just given above is the exact process that I've used in your situation in the past and it does work, it may be a little bit of hassle, but it's easier than the hassle you're going through now)

Edited November 30, 2011 by danielr
changed ownership documents to V5c to clariffy that V5c doesn't necessarily specify ownership, only keeper

[patdavies]

If you'll need to be going to the garage for the MOT feel free to drive directly to the garage without either an MOT or tax, provided your trip to the garage is direct, and your appointment is booked you'll be fine even if you are stopped by the police. (because your papers would be in order)

 

There is no requirement in law to either go directly or to the nearest test station. Case law has set precedent that it is entirely reasonable to stop one the way to the test.

[danielr]

Yes, that case where the guy stopped for some petrol, then further down the road for cigarettes?

 

I don't think it'd be quite the same as picking a car up from the dealers, on the Tuesday ready for your MOT on the Wednesday.

 

Or the same as picking up the car on the Tuesday morning driving home and then going out hours later in the afternoon.

 

 

I know that there is no requirement to go to the nearest station either (what if you live next to a dodgy dealer or someone that you wouldn't trust with your car)? nobody can tell you that you must spend your money at a certain garage.

 

whilst it might be tested that you can stop to run small errands on your way to the centre, and that you don't need to use the nearest.

 

That doesn't mean that booking an MOT on a given day is a free license to drive wherever you are without tax for the day (that's certainly not tested)

I don't believe it's tested either to pick a car up in London and drive it to Birmingham via Manchester for example because you live there and want it tested there and wanted to run a little errand to see some friends on the way.

 

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you said reasonable.

It's reasonable to leave a little early and pick up cigarettes or some milk, it's be reasonable to go to a broker to get a cover note for your insurance on the way to or back from the MOT. it's reasonable to stop again at the post office to actually buy the tax, it's reasonable to book an MOT in the next town a few miles away. it's reasonable to drive round the bypass rather than through town

[ZENTRIX9]

Hi I have a court letter saying that I was uninsured on 10/07/2012. I also have a letter from DVLA stating my SORN starts on 29/06/2012. Can someone have a look and see if I am right in thinking that I can send them copies and tell them to go away and stop wasting my time.

 

http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/zentrix9/DVLA/dvla1a_zpsc4b86442.jpg

http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/zentrix9/DVLA/dvla2a_zps1643e858.jpg

[clint1974]

SORN is only to say that the vehicle is not being used/ a valid tax disc isn't displayed as it is sorn'd. You still have to have insurance for the vehicle.